About your Search

20130201
20130228
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)
senator from a red state, a decorated and wounded combat veteran nominated to lead the pentagon while we are at war. republicans have never before felt the need to filibuster a cabinet member in the history of the country but apparently now this is the time and this is the guy worth waiting 224 years to spring it on. it has never happened before, but why not now? heck. the white house is not pleased. "today's action runs against both the majority will of the senate and our nation's interest. this waste of time is not without consequence. we have 66,000 men and women deployed in afghanistan, and we need our new secretary of defense to be a part of significant decisions about how we bring that war to a responsible end. next week in brussels, the united states will meet with our allies to talk about the transition in afghanistan at the nato defense ministerial, and our next secretary of defense should be there. for the sake of national security, it's time to stop playing politics with our department of defense and to move beyond the distractions and delay. allow this war hero an up or down
. are republicans gearing up to deny an up or down vote for the pentagon kick before the weekend? >>> president obama's road show policy push hits atlanta today and we'll take a deep dive into the options and odds of the president having to fall back on executive actions, because his policies won't go anywhere in congress. >>> and the republican ruckus over karl rove's conservative counter-strategy is reaching a bit of a fever pitch. but is the core of this fight really about the messengers or the message itself? >> good morning from washington and happy valentine's day. it's thursday, february 14th, 2013. this is "the daily rundown." i'm chuck todd. let's get right to my first reads of the morning. it may be valentine's day, but not a lot of love for chuck hagel. next week a nato meeting of defense ministers is scheduled in brussels. but given the way chuck hagel's nomination is going, it's possible the u.s. may not have a new defense secretary there or leon panetta may be forced to go there steed. yesterday, the senate began the odd procedural dance that is required for cloture, the process f
that is relate to the pentagon and to the u.s. military that will just be held in abians -- >> what do you think the british military and the french think when leon panetta turns up? >> well, they like leon panetta but what they will think is what they have been thinking for the last 2 1/2 years, is that the republican party in the united states has gone off the rails and is obstructing the normal order of business of the world's only super power, and this is the first time, martin, in the history of the defense department going back to the 1940s that there's been a filibuster of a nominee to head that department and i would wager that if it went to its predecessor that the department of war going all the way back in american history, this has never been done. these people are out of control in their obstructionism and the only thing to do is fight them all the way, and there are new tools that the president unveiled in his state of the union to do that with. the president should go to enlisted personnel, retired enlisted personnel all over the united states and say, chuck hagel is the first of
there starts to end. the headline news out of brussels today was a very terse statement from the pentagon spokesman. it was kind of strange. he was essentially clarifying, hey, whatever you heard from the germans earlier today, that was not true. this is the statement. the reports that the u.s. told allies that we are considering 8,000 to 12,000 u.s. troops after 2014 are not correct. a range of 8,000 to 12,000 troops was discussed, but it was discussed as the possible size of the overall nato mission, not the u.s. contribution. ah, important clarification. so the defense minister from germany had apparently told reporters that 8 to 12,000 troops was how many troops america was going to keep in afghanistan. everybody thought that was very big news since that's not what we heard hear at home at all. maybe that is how the german guy understood it, but it is apparently not the way that leon panetta meant it. that was the headline out of brussels today. those troops, that's nato combined, that's not just us. that was the headline. the other news of course was that representing the united stat
apart and obviously the optics of being out of town when there's steep cuts to the pentagon and other government programs is not great but it's really an oversimplification of the issue. >> molly, what about the plan put forth earlier this week, the $110 billion plan to avert the sequester. is that going to gain any traction? >> i doubt it. republicans have already basically said that's dead on arrival and as jake said it's not like they were getting anything done here in washington before they went on vacation. there really hasn't been any progress. there are no negotiations, nobody's talking to each other. you have these one-sided plans being put together and then they sort of get lobbed over the fence and the other side says eh, no. we're a long way from a constructive dialogue happening between the parties on capitol hill. >> jake in a piece yesterday you wrote "house republicans say if they spend the next two years like they spent the past two they'll become irrelevant." who are the most prominent republicans leading this charge toward as you put it irrelevancy? >> toward irrelev
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)